Race-Based Hiring Programs Persist at Public Universities. Here's How.

Merit is the key to excellence

I don't know if its still in effect but when I retired the Government who says you can't discriminate due to age did exactly that. I could not apply to the FAA as an FAA Certified Air Traffic Controller due to my age, I was 44 at the time.

The statement by Dan Morenoff highlights a significant legal perspective on race-based hiring practices. In the United States, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This extends to all aspects of employment, including hiring, firing, and promotion decisions within universities like UIC (University of Illinois at Chicago).

- **Legal Foundation**: The law has been clear since 1964 with Title VII, which applies to both private and public employers, including universities. This means that any hiring practice that discriminates based on race is generally considered illegal unless it falls under very specific, legally defensible exceptions like certain affirmative action programs that are narrowly tailored to remedy past discrimination and meet strict scrutiny standards.

- **Recent Judicial Interpretations**: The Supreme Court's decision to outlaw race-based admissions in higher education last year further underscores the legal landscape's movement towards race-neutral policies. While this decision directly applies to admissions, it reflects a broader judicial philosophy against race-based considerations in public institutional practices, which can influence employment practices indirectly.

- **UIC's Situation**: If UIC is indeed engaging in race-based hiring practices for faculty positions, as Morenoff suggests, it might be seen as flouting these legal obligations. However, universities often implement diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives with the aim to increase representation of underrepresented groups. These initiatives must still comply with federal and state laws, meaning they should be designed to avoid explicit racial preferences unless they meet legal standards for affirmative action.

- **Potential Defenses**: Historically, some institutions have argued that diversity in faculty can enhance educational quality, which might be defended under certain legal frameworks if tied to educational benefits and not just racial quotas. Yet, these practices must be carefully managed to ensure they do not cross into illegal discrimination territory.

- **Counterarguments**: Critics of Morenoff's view might argue that efforts to increase diversity are not inherently discriminatory but are corrective measures intended to address systemic imbalances. They might point out that while explicit quotas are illegal, broader diversity goals can be pursued through outreach, mentoring, and inclusive hiring processes that do not discriminate but seek to level the playing field.

In conclusion, while Morenoff's assertion underlines the legal prohibitions against race-based hiring, the application of these laws in practice, especially in academic settings, can be complex. Universities must navigate these laws carefully, ensuring their hiring practices are legally compliant while still striving to create diverse and inclusive environments.[](https://freebeacon.com/campus/inside-a-public-universitys-race-based-hiring-program/)[](https://x.com/BrandonWarmke/status/ [login to see] 68262745)